05-23-2016 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION May 2, 2016 DRAFT 3 - Road closures – engineer will make sure there is access to all properties at all 90 times; they will work with special events or special access needs also. 91 - Start date – engineer stated June 6 is the county’s plan, based on the final day of 92 school and the plan to not disrupt school transportation; 93 - Communication to residents – folder of information planned for residents; 94 - After construction issues –county engineer said they hold a retainage from the 95 contractor to deal with issues that arise; 96 - Property owner at 7262 Sunset Av expressed concern about the easement that 97 would cut his property in half and his concern that it isn’t clearly needed; Mr. Fisher said 98 the county is willing to not ask for that easement. 99 100 Mayor Reinert expressed concern about a fair process for property acquisition and Mr. 101 Fisher said they are always committed to negotiating a fair deal and avoiding a long 102 drawn out process; they respect the rights of the property owner but must as well 103 recognize they are using taxpayer funds. Mr. Fisher added that impact on just four 104 properties is low. 105 106 Mr. Fisher and the engineer noted the size of the proposed roundabout – it has been well 107 planned and will be large enough to accommodate needs. 108 109 Mayor Reinert remarked that if people have concerns or questions, the council’s heard 110 that the county is ready and able to communicate. 111 112 3. 550 Lilac Street SAC Assessment – Community Development Director 113 Grochala noted that the owner of this business center property appeared before the 114 council at their last meeting to discuss an assessment against his property. Mr. Grochala 115 reviewed the history of the situation: 116 - The business center was built in 2003 and was charged SAC charges from the Met 117 Council for facilities in place at that time; 118 - In 2010 a building permit was issued for a retrofit to allow for Anytime Fitness. It 119 included the addition of showers and that triggered a SAC addition of three credits; 120 $6,300 came due; 121 - In 2010 the city approached the property owner and a study of SAC charges was 122 requested and prepared by engineering staff; the additional assessment wasn’t picked up 123 (the city charges were there but the SAC wasn’t picked up); 124 - The building was purchased by Mr. Moriteza in 2010; 125 - In 2012 the Met Council did their normal audit process (the city is responsible for 126 collecting their SAC charges) and found that charges were outstanding; 127 - A notice was given to Mr. Moriteza; he did not pay and indicated he felt the previous 128 owner should pay; 129 - Because the assessment wasn’t paid, it was certified against the property, payable 2014; 130 - What was ultimately sent to Anoka County for certification included an incorrect PIN 131 number; when that was determined, the charges were abated and reassessed to Mr. 132 Moriteza’s property; 133